Stadium Discussion

[LionNYC]

Did anyone find out what # they are in the founding member order?

Yes I did, you can email them to ask.

 

[LionNYC]

The Tunnel Club seats in Manchester are heated. From what I know, these ones will not be. When MLS moves to that international calendar for the 2027 season, it's going to be freezing at matches in New York a lot more than it is now. It's going to feel like freezing temperatures tomorrow too.

 

[Bane]

The Tunnel Club seats in Manchester are heated. From what I know, these ones will not be. When MLS moves to that international calendar for the 2027 season, it's going to be freezing at matches in New York a lot more than it is now. It's going to feel like freezing temperatures tomorrow too.

If they were smart, they’d change that now or shortly after the stadium is opened.

 

[FootyLovin]

This is a good post, and it all makes a lot of sense. Still, the magnitude of the increase is so large that even the things you mention can't justify it in my mind. This is particularly true given the pitifully small founding member's discount and the 5-year commitment.

The only thing that justifies it or not is the market. If people (companies) buy, it’s justified.

I appreciate the sentimental assessment. But this team isn’t a sentimental operation.

 

[FootyLovin]

It will never make sense when there is such a spending disparity between leagues such as between MLS and USL (and honestly, all the European leagues).

It provides the illusion of an open pyramid where any team can make it, but when you need to spend more than 10x of what you're currently spending on your roster to compete, you'll never get there unless the lower league club is sold to much wealthier owners. Look at who wins in Europe, its the same guys over and over. Sure, your team can get promoted to the top league, but they're not actually going to compete there.

The pro/rel between USL divisions can work because the spending discrepancies between those divisions will be much more manageable. Additionally, in the US, very little of the revenue clubs are bringing in is TV$, so any bump moving from USL to MLS from a revenue perspective allowing owners to spend more would be immaterial.

I love the idea of pro/rel in theory where everyone has the same spending ability. It's romantic and an awesome idea.

It just doesn't ultimately make sense because not everyone has the same spending ability and it realistically results in killing competition at the top.

“It just doesn’t ultimately make sense” is only based on your assumption that equal competition / parity is the goal. Pro/rel isn’t a great system because newly promoted sides can compete with perennial favorites. It’s a great system because it builds excitement for every part of the table. Our playoff system where 70% of the teams get in does something similar. As we know (and mgarbowski will be all too happy to remind us) bottom seeds don’t win. Yet we still get excited about and root for our team to get in. Hope springs eternal.

I’m in favor of pro/rel for that reason. I don’t think the newly promoted USL side from Peoria will compete with top MLS sides (though David Lee is doing his best to give them a shot). But I think it will be massively important to them to make it to the first division and equally massive for the teams that dropped down. It’s high drama at the bottom of the table. I love it.

 

[mgarbowski]

The only thing that justifies it or not is the market. If people (companies) buy, it’s justified.

I appreciate the sentimental assessment. But this team isn’t a sentimental operation.

Agreed. My criticism of the prices has been because I question if the market is there, even as I acknowledge maybe it is.
The part I find off-putting is the miniscule Founders discount between 1 and 2%. That's allowed by the terms of the deal in 2014-15: they simply have to maintain a Founders discount at some level. But the number of Founders has diminished greatly (including me - I was but no longer). Am I correct someone counted less than 2,000 when they put the names on the board a few games ago? The team should be willing to offer Founders more than $250 off a $15.5k and up premium seat that requires a 5 year commitment. Even with $1,000 off, probably no more than a small handful of Founders would take them up with it.

 

[mgarbowski]

“It just doesn’t ultimately make sense” is only based on your assumption that equal competition / parity is the goal. Pro/rel isn’t a great system because newly promoted sides can compete with perennial favorites. It’s a great system because it builds excitement for every part of the table.

Maybe "assumption" isn't the right concept here? Because if so you just substituted your assumption for his. I think these are preferences, then and this is like arguing over whether camp or farce is inherently better.

 

[JayH]

Agreed. My criticism of the prices has been because I question if the market is there, even as I acknowledge maybe it is.
The part I find off-putting is the miniscule Founders discount between 1 and 2%. That's allowed by the terms of the deal in 2014-15: they simply have to maintain a Founders discount at some level. But the number of Founders has diminished greatly (including me - I was but no longer). Am I correct someone counted less than 2,000 when they put the names on the board a few games ago? The team should be willing to offer Founders more than $250 off a $15.5k and up premium seat that requires a 5 year commitment. Even with $1,000 off, probably no more than a small handful of Founders would take them up with it.

They have a simple and obvious mechanism to demonstrate that they value the loyalty by providing a more than de minimis founding member discount and they do the opposite to confirm they don’t care at all. I don’t fault them for going all in on high priced corporate accounts, but they could have done a little better with the current base. Even other things as simple as being more forthcoming with other later options, pricing, etc. None of this is a surprise though, it’s the good and the bad of what is going to be a beautiful new stadium.

 

[Revfugee]

“It just doesn’t ultimately make sense” is only based on your assumption that

Maybe "assumption" isn't the right concept here? Because if so you just substituted your assumption for his. I think these are preferences, then and this is like arguing over whether camp or farce is inherently better.

equal competition / parity is the goal. Pro/rel isn’t a great system because newly promoted sides can compete with perennial favorites. It’s a great system because it builds excitement for every part of the table. Our playoff system where 70% of the teams get in does something similar. As we know (and mgarbowski will be all too happy to remind us) bottom seeds don’t win. Yet we still get excited about and root for our team to get in. Hope springs eternal.

I’m in favor of pro/rel for that reason. I don’t think the newly promoted USL side from Peoria will compete with top MLS sides (though David Lee is doing his best to give them a shot). But I think it will be massively important to them to make it to the first division and equally massive for the teams that dropped down. It’s high drama at the bottom of the table. I love it.

My expectation is that MLS will continue to grow by expansion and that eventually it will split into two divisions with pro/rel separating them. This would provide a hedge for partner/owners. Any other pro-rel model would disrupt MLS franchise value on a catastrophic scale. And that’s not gonna happen.

 

[mgarbowski]

They have a simple and obvious mechanism to demonstrate that they value the loyalty by providing a more than de minimis founding member discount and they do the opposite to confirm they don’t care at all. I don’t fault them for going all in on high priced corporate accounts, but they could have done a little better with the current base. Even other things as simple as being more forthcoming with other later options, pricing, etc. None of this is a surprise though, it’s the good and the bad of what is going to be a beautiful new stadium.

As this has developed it has both confirmed what I thought when they announced the process but also I just recently realized something I never considered.
What I got right is the BS game playing of not being forthcoming about future options. I get why: it both allows them to deploy FOMO and maintain flexibility in pricing the next levels down based on how the most expensive sell (not just how fast but to whom). But I detest it. To me it shows a real lack of respect for customers.
What I missed probably should have been obvious. It allows them to sell the most expensive options now to the public at large without waiting for every current STH and deposit-maker to pick their seats, and to continue selling both current and future memberships with a promise of priority up until the last minute. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this, and if they used this tiered timing but were transparent about the cost, specifics and timing of future options I'd think a lot better of them.

 

[FootyLovin]

Maybe "assumption" isn't the right concept here? Because if so you just substituted your assumption for his. I think these are preferences, then and this is like arguing over whether camp or farce is inherently better.

You're right. My language was inelegant. Better would have been, "To the degree pro/rel is a good system, it is good because ..."

And in all likelihood SoupInNYC was expressing the same. To the degree it's a bad system.

And yes, my values align with pro/rel. I like the drama of competition at both ends of the table. I don't really care about parity. Frankly, I don't think anyone here truly wants parity. We all want NYCFC to win more than our fair share. If we were one of a half dozen perennial favorites, that would be fine by me. And if simultaneously I could watch and root for NJ to be relegated, how much better?